pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep \ parent \ on: Milei Wants More Government Spending—For the Military, of Course econ
Increasing military spending is certainly not unambiguously libertarian and many libertarians do not think the state should have permanent armed forces. I wouldn't say this is the author missing anything.
is certainly not unambiguously libertarian
It is. It strictly is, in the very sense of the word, a Libertarian policy:
- Adam Smith: "The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force."
- Von Mises: "The peoples who have developed the system of market economy and cling to it are in every respect superior to all other peoples. The fact that they are eager to preserve peace is not a mark of their weakness and inability to wage war. They love peace because they know that armed conflicts are pernicious and disintegrate the social division of labor. But if war becomes unavoidable, they show their superior efficiency in military affairs too. They repel the barbarian aggressors whatever their numbers may be."
- Von Hayek: “I am convinced Reagan is right not to reduce arms expenditure. World peace depends upon America staying strong. We already have so many atomic weapons that a nuclear war would mean the end of civilization: so the discussion as to whether arms increases intensify the threat of war is nonsense. In fact it’s no longer a question of whether nuclear war can be avoided or not; the real problem is whether we have got ourselves into a situation in which the Soviets can intimidate us to such an extent that we knuckle under completely. We can’t afford that kind of weakness. Ergo, the West must stay at least as strong as the Soviet Union."
- Milton Friedman: "Unfortunately, we need to have an army, and we need to have a good army and an efficient army."
- Gadsden Flag: The basic principle of being able to defend yourself is the one outstanding symbol in the liberal flag, underscoring it's core importance.
I wouldn't say this is the author missing anything.
Right above I have just showed he is missing everything, literally to the point of being both laughable and lame. To start, he is missing what's the meaning of Libertarianism and what it stands for. He demonstrates in his article a profound ignorance on the most simple and basic principles of the libertarianism, and I have just demonstrated that with actual names and quotes on the above paragraph. It's there, it's all over the foundational bibliography, I have just quoted it. Now the author can disagree, but then he can't call his view to be "the" libertarian view.
many libertarians...
...are not "all libertarians" and much less are they "the Libertarianism" in itself, again, as demonstrated at the very beginning of this post.
reply
Libertarianism is the combination of the Non Aggression Principle and Lockean Homesteading theory.
You also should have started that first quote where I started it. None of the thinkers you cite assert that military budgets always need to be increased, which is the objection of the author of the article.
The entire branch of libertarianism that Milei has been associated with, Anarcho-Capitalism, is opposed to state militaries.
You're just going to have to take the L on this one. Nothing in libertarianism requires support for state-run tax-funded militaries.
reply
You also should have started that first quote where I started it. None of the thinkers you cite assert that military budgets always need to be increased
None of them assert it should be reduced either, the debate is on how it can be maintained long term.
The entire branch of libertarianism that Milei has been associated with, Anarcho-Capitalism, is opposed to state militaries.
That's the problem of the ones who made said association.
You're just going to have to take the L on this one.
For what? I have just proved you wrong on every single point again.
reply
You really didn't and it's wild that you see it that way. Libertarians do not have to support state funding for anything. If you think they do, then you fundamentally don't know what you're talking about.
You often warn about the path America is headed down. I'll return the favor. Libertarianism plus an expansive military is how you end up where we are. A big socialized military will trickle out into everything else.
reply
You really didn't and it's wild that you see it that way.
Because that's how it is, let me clarify further below:
Libertarians do not have to support state funding for anything.
I agree, yet you are deriving into the straw-man fallacy here, blaming me for something I didn't questioned. I pointed that between the very few things libertarianism supports funding for, this is one, as you saw for the case of all major referents above.
A big socialized military will trickle out into everything else.
And I never questioned that, hence the reason I accept the argument of the referents I mentioned in how to keep funding in a non-socialized way. Yet, until we get there, this is the starting point. Could Milei cut fundings freely he could have banned taxes the first day.
reply
you are deriving into the straw-man fallacy here
I apologize if I didn't pick up what you were putting down, but you definitely made a false claim when you implied that increasing military spending is unambiguously libertarian.
I never questioned that (vis a vis big socialized military)
You did, when you said I was wrong to say that "Increasing military spending is certainly not unambiguously libertarian". If you didn't understand what I meant, that's fine, but disagreeing with that statement means you're asserting that the only libertarian position is that military spending has to be increased.
Libertarians can only support increased military funding if it is required for the protection of life, liberty, or property. The author of the article contends that none of those criteria are met.
I also didn't really get into your citations, but most of those are not from libertarians. Classical liberals may be our predecessors, but they weren't operating from the same philosophical premises. Even the two libertarians (Hayek and Friedman, who are borderline cases) are supporting military spending from a practical, rather than principled position. My contention is that they got duped by the Neocons on this matter, as did many otherwise great American thinkers.
reply
but you definitely made a false claim when you implied that increasing military spending is unambiguously libertarian.
I definitely did not, as you yourself perfectly stated: "Libertarians can only support increased military funding if it is required for the protection of life, liberty, or property." That's unambiguously libertarian. You just said it yourself.
You did
No I strictly didn't. I didn't defended, at all, the socialization of funding as the one and only way from now on and forever. I defended Milei's policy, as I stated, right now, in this specific frame of time, given the specific current conditions and context. And I stated, twice, that I agreed with the view of the major libertarian referents that the source of funding must not be socialized and other scheme must be developed.
the only libertarian position is that military spending has to be increased
I said exactly what you just said right after this: "Libertarians can only support increased military funding if it is required for the protection of life, liberty, or property." I did not thought it was necessary to clarify that it was under those principles, given that it's clear the frame in which libertarianism supports that, as you stated.
The author of the article contends that none of those criteria are met.
That's the one thing we should have been debating. Of course I disagree because I know our situation first-hand. First, you do not need for a country to declare war on you as the one and sole mean of having a conflict, we have enough with warlord drug dealers that govern entire provinces and a full blow insurgence in the south of leftist that invaded and claimed swats of territory. The armed forces where necessary to pacify all of those fronts. Second, the new equipment is needed to replace vietnam-era equipment. You can't replace A4 Skyhawks with new ones, that's why the next thing at hand are F16s. Yo do not need the speed to engage, you need it to to get where the problem is. We have been menaced already by terrorists solely for not bowing to their whims. We have been attacked already and lost a lot of life in the AMIA bomb attack, without having taken any stand on anything, just because the terrorists where offended at us for refusing to support their schemes. So the menaces are very, very real. It can only be from the heights of entitled idiocy that this keyboard-libertarians can so comfortably and lightly make such claims but, what do they know, it's the reason they have limited themselves to the complete intranscendence in the real world besides collecting fancy empty titles.
are supporting military spending from a practical, rather than principled position.
That's all that's needed.
reply
You're being disingenuous (knowingly or unknowingly), so I'm done talking to you about this.